Superstition
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the point is more like, "I'm a member of the human race," as opposed to "I'm with these guys, and everyone else has to die"
I think the point is more : "If I'm in trouble, who can I count on to help me?" I help people, as much as I can. US and foreign. Who can I count on to help me when I'm down? Everyone else doesn't need to die.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Well I can't speak to the original quote, but the way my grandfather saw it, and the way I see it, is as I said.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Who says the big bang was the beginning, or that the "heat death" (I assume you mean the theorized big crunch) is the end?
"Heat death" is not big crunch. Big crunch is now much lower probability, as the discovery of negative energy makes it higher probably that the universe will continue to accelerate its expansion. Eventually, entropy will be maximized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that we simply don't know what's "outside" the universe, if there is an "outside"... Claiming the existence of a "creator" is no more credible than claiming the existence of other dimensions or infinite time.
There is no evidence for anything outside of the universe. If photons got from it could get here, it would be would be in the universe, by definition. I understand you argument. I have personal observation that convinces me. YMMV.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Claims to have it
I know it has it. You disbelieve, so YMMV. [shrug]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I look at nature and physics and such, and it all seems simple and mechanical, even if I'm not very good with the equations... It seems like everything is just an extension of particle physics, and there's no room for any sort of "creator" pulling the strings
You think there is no room for a Creator because we understand stuff. I think that stuff you think fills up the room is the product of God. So is all the stuff we don't understand. Calculus is part of what convinced me that God exists.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I understand you argument. I have personal observation that convinces me. YMMV.
Fair enough.
RichardM1 wrote:
You think there is no room for a Creator because we understand stuff.
Not quite. I think there's no room for a creator, because I look at what we do understand, and see the trend. I see nothing that would suggest any sort of thinking creator, and since no one has been able to present any real evidence of one, I discount it as improbable.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Something moving away from you at a significant fraction of the speed of light would appear to slow down
Yes, and something coming towards would appear to speed up. But if you take those illusions that into account, they both are still time dilated.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would the electronics on-board experience a similar effect, if the speed of light is limited? Like a chronometer might slow down, because the current slows
Nothing is an effect. No matter what your frame of reference, the speed of light, in all directions is c. If we do the experiment on Earth, it is c. If we do it in a frame of reference moving at .9_c_ wrt Earth, the speed of light in all directions is c. The only way this works is that time is not the same for all frames of reference.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes, and something coming towards would appear to speed up. But if you take those illusions that into account, they both are still time dilated.
But that's not time speeding up. That's our perception of time being altered. It seems to move slower or faster, because the light that we use to perceive its speed has a finite limit. The time in transit should still be the same...
RichardM1 wrote:
Nothing is an effect. No matter what your frame of reference, the speed of light, in all directions is c. If we do the experiment on Earth, it is c. If we do it in a frame of reference moving at .9c wrt Earth, the speed of light in all directions is c. The only way this works is that time is not the same for all frames of reference.
That's another thing that bugs me... I understand the concept, but it just doesn't make sense to me that it should move the same speed, regardless of the frame of reference. I mean, nothing else in nature follows that rule, right? Everything else goes by simple forces and inertia... Apply a force vector, and you change the velocity... So I wonder why light should ALWAYS move at the same speed (Modified by the medium)... And faster-than-light travel... General relativity talks about how as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, so it's impossible to add more velocity... I have a lot of trouble accepting that. Seems to me that no matter how fast you're going, if you shoot something out the back, it'll accelerate you. Again and again, I come back to the so-called "dark matter"... Maybe a vacuum isn't really a vacuum, and the speed of light is really just the terminal velocity of an EM wave. Maybe general relativity is just explaining how friction with this unseen material affects good ol' F=ma... Or maybe I'm completely wrong... *shrug*
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes, and something coming towards would appear to speed up. But if you take those illusions that into account, they both are still time dilated.
But that's not time speeding up. That's our perception of time being altered. It seems to move slower or faster, because the light that we use to perceive its speed has a finite limit. The time in transit should still be the same...
RichardM1 wrote:
Nothing is an effect. No matter what your frame of reference, the speed of light, in all directions is c. If we do the experiment on Earth, it is c. If we do it in a frame of reference moving at .9c wrt Earth, the speed of light in all directions is c. The only way this works is that time is not the same for all frames of reference.
That's another thing that bugs me... I understand the concept, but it just doesn't make sense to me that it should move the same speed, regardless of the frame of reference. I mean, nothing else in nature follows that rule, right? Everything else goes by simple forces and inertia... Apply a force vector, and you change the velocity... So I wonder why light should ALWAYS move at the same speed (Modified by the medium)... And faster-than-light travel... General relativity talks about how as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, so it's impossible to add more velocity... I have a lot of trouble accepting that. Seems to me that no matter how fast you're going, if you shoot something out the back, it'll accelerate you. Again and again, I come back to the so-called "dark matter"... Maybe a vacuum isn't really a vacuum, and the speed of light is really just the terminal velocity of an EM wave. Maybe general relativity is just explaining how friction with this unseen material affects good ol' F=ma... Or maybe I'm completely wrong... *shrug*
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
it just doesn't make sense to me that it should move the same speed, regardless of the frame of reference. I mean, nothing else in nature follows that rule, right?
Not that rule, because that is not the controlling rule. The controlling rule is that all the other rules, including f=ma, apply equally, regardless of your frame of reference. If I am going along at 0.9_c_, relative to you, all the rules apply to me, which means light goes at the speed of light in my frame of reference. Because I am not going 0.9c! I am going 0.9_c_ relative to you! You are going 0.9_c_ relative to ME!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, so it's impossible to add more velocity
f=ma: 1 kg m/s^2 requires 1 newton. A kg approaches c relative to you At some point, for you, its time dilation reaches 10. You apply a newton to the 1 kg You expect its acceleration to be 1m/s^2. And it is. But it's time dilation is 10, so 10 seconds of your time pass for 1 sec to pass for it, and before its velocity has increased by 1m/s. Turn it around, you have to apply 10 newtons for 1 second of your time to get that same 1m/s change in v. So to you, it seems the mass has increased by a factor of 10, the same as the time dilation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So I wonder why light should ALWAYS move at the same speed (Modified by the medium)
Careful, light does not require a medium. But yes, c, in a medium, varies.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Maybe a vacuum isn't really a vacuum, and the speed of light is really just the terminal velocity of an EM wave.
Light ALWAYS goes c, and never slower. c varies per above.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I understand you argument. I have personal observation that convinces me. YMMV.
Fair enough.
RichardM1 wrote:
You think there is no room for a Creator because we understand stuff.
Not quite. I think there's no room for a creator, because I look at what we do understand, and see the trend. I see nothing that would suggest any sort of thinking creator, and since no one has been able to present any real evidence of one, I discount it as improbable.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I see nothing that would suggest any sort of thinking creator, and since no one has been able to present any real evidence of one, I discount it as improbable.
Do you see anything that precludes a thinking creator? You are applying bias. You shouldn't discount it a improbable, you should admit you have not data that requires, or precludes, a thinking creator, and that you have no idea what the probability is.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
it just doesn't make sense to me that it should move the same speed, regardless of the frame of reference. I mean, nothing else in nature follows that rule, right?
Not that rule, because that is not the controlling rule. The controlling rule is that all the other rules, including f=ma, apply equally, regardless of your frame of reference. If I am going along at 0.9_c_, relative to you, all the rules apply to me, which means light goes at the speed of light in my frame of reference. Because I am not going 0.9c! I am going 0.9_c_ relative to you! You are going 0.9_c_ relative to ME!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity, so it's impossible to add more velocity
f=ma: 1 kg m/s^2 requires 1 newton. A kg approaches c relative to you At some point, for you, its time dilation reaches 10. You apply a newton to the 1 kg You expect its acceleration to be 1m/s^2. And it is. But it's time dilation is 10, so 10 seconds of your time pass for 1 sec to pass for it, and before its velocity has increased by 1m/s. Turn it around, you have to apply 10 newtons for 1 second of your time to get that same 1m/s change in v. So to you, it seems the mass has increased by a factor of 10, the same as the time dilation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So I wonder why light should ALWAYS move at the same speed (Modified by the medium)
Careful, light does not require a medium. But yes, c, in a medium, varies.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Maybe a vacuum isn't really a vacuum, and the speed of light is really just the terminal velocity of an EM wave.
Light ALWAYS goes c, and never slower. c varies per above.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
The controlling rule is that all the other rules, including f=ma, apply equally, regardless of your frame of reference. If I am going along at 0.9c, relative to you, all the rules apply to me, which means light goes at the speed of light in my frame of reference.
Ok... Well I'm sure you've heard this one before... If two ships are moving toward each other, each moving at 0.9c relative to a stationary observer, then they SHOULD be moving at 1.8c relative to each other... General relativity states that they're only moving at 0.9c relative to each other... But if they're 0.9 light minutes apart, is that stationary observer in the middle (Hopefully not TOO close to the middle) going to see them crash in one minute or 30 seconds? If the latter, then it just doesn't make sense to say that they're only moving 0.9c relative to each other. It might make sense that we only PERCEIVE them moving at 0.9c, even though the actual relative speed is twice that.
RichardM1 wrote:
So to you, it seems the mass has increased by a factor of 10, the same as the time dilation.
But again... That's perceived acceleration... If your destination is 0.9 light minutes away, and you're moving at 0.9c... If you apply an additional force, will you crash into the planet at your destination in one minute or less than one minute, as observed by a third party? For some reason, I keep coming back to things crashing into each other... I must be in a weird mood...
RichardM1 wrote:
Careful, light does not require a medium. But yes, c, in a medium, varies.
Understood... Just heading off the obvious "It only moves at 3x10^8m/s in a vacuum" nitpick :)
RichardM1 wrote:
Light ALWAYS goes c, and never slower. c varies per above.
The way I've always understood it was that c ~= 3x10^8m/s = Speed of light in a vacuum. It's a constant. Light travels slower than c through a denser medium.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I see nothing that would suggest any sort of thinking creator, and since no one has been able to present any real evidence of one, I discount it as improbable.
Do you see anything that precludes a thinking creator? You are applying bias. You shouldn't discount it a improbable, you should admit you have not data that requires, or precludes, a thinking creator, and that you have no idea what the probability is.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you see anything that precludes a thinking creator? You are applying bias. You shouldn't discount it a improbable, you should admit you have not data that requires, or precludes, a thinking creator, and that you have no idea what the probability is.
So should I apply equal probability to the chance that the universe was created by a metaphysical extrapolation of Chuck Norris's beard? (Sorry, it just popped into my head) That the entire universe is actually about to be sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure? (There, made up for it with a H2G2 reference) There's no way to disprove any of those theories. Basically, since we have no way of knowing what's outside the universe, if anything, then any theory has an equal probability. Since the number of possible theories is limited only by our imagination, I think we can assume that number to be, for all intents and purposes, infinite. If all theories are equally likely, than the chance of a particular theory being correct is inversely proportional to the number of theories, hence it approaches zero. Of course, one theory has to be correct, by definition, though we may not have thought of it yet. Until we have some sort of evidence to adjust the probabilities, I stick to the default position of all of these theories being equally improbable. EDIT: Stupid typo.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modified on Monday, March 22, 2010 4:12 PM
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you see anything that precludes a thinking creator? You are applying bias. You shouldn't discount it a improbable, you should admit you have not data that requires, or precludes, a thinking creator, and that you have no idea what the probability is.
So should I apply equal probability to the chance that the universe was created by a metaphysical extrapolation of Chuck Norris's beard? (Sorry, it just popped into my head) That the entire universe is actually about to be sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure? (There, made up for it with a H2G2 reference) There's no way to disprove any of those theories. Basically, since we have no way of knowing what's outside the universe, if anything, then any theory has an equal probability. Since the number of possible theories is limited only by our imagination, I think we can assume that number to be, for all intents and purposes, infinite. If all theories are equally likely, than the chance of a particular theory being correct is inversely proportional to the number of theories, hence it approaches zero. Of course, one theory has to be correct, by definition, though we may not have thought of it yet. Until we have some sort of evidence to adjust the probabilities, I stick to the default position of all of these theories being equally improbable. EDIT: Stupid typo.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modified on Monday, March 22, 2010 4:12 PM
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So should I apply equal probability to the chance that the universe was created by a metaphysical extrapolation of Chuck Norris's beard?
Yes. You assign their probabilities the same designation: You admit that we don't know the probability of any particular metaphysical possibility. On the other hand, anything that is part of the created universe is known to have a zero chance of having created the universe. Except Chuck Norris.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I stick to the default position of all of these theories being equally improbable.
Unknown is not equal, without asking you favor any.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So should I apply equal probability to the chance that the universe was created by a metaphysical extrapolation of Chuck Norris's beard?
Yes. You assign their probabilities the same designation: You admit that we don't know the probability of any particular metaphysical possibility. On the other hand, anything that is part of the created universe is known to have a zero chance of having created the universe. Except Chuck Norris.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I stick to the default position of all of these theories being equally improbable.
Unknown is not equal, without asking you favor any.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Unknown is not equal, without asking you favor any.
If we have no actual knowledge, then we can't assign a higher probability to one theory than to another. Without any data, the "creator" theory is no more likely than the "snot" theory, which is no more likely than the "airport locker" theory (Men in Black 2).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
The controlling rule is that all the other rules, including f=ma, apply equally, regardless of your frame of reference. If I am going along at 0.9c, relative to you, all the rules apply to me, which means light goes at the speed of light in my frame of reference.
Ok... Well I'm sure you've heard this one before... If two ships are moving toward each other, each moving at 0.9c relative to a stationary observer, then they SHOULD be moving at 1.8c relative to each other... General relativity states that they're only moving at 0.9c relative to each other... But if they're 0.9 light minutes apart, is that stationary observer in the middle (Hopefully not TOO close to the middle) going to see them crash in one minute or 30 seconds? If the latter, then it just doesn't make sense to say that they're only moving 0.9c relative to each other. It might make sense that we only PERCEIVE them moving at 0.9c, even though the actual relative speed is twice that.
RichardM1 wrote:
So to you, it seems the mass has increased by a factor of 10, the same as the time dilation.
But again... That's perceived acceleration... If your destination is 0.9 light minutes away, and you're moving at 0.9c... If you apply an additional force, will you crash into the planet at your destination in one minute or less than one minute, as observed by a third party? For some reason, I keep coming back to things crashing into each other... I must be in a weird mood...
RichardM1 wrote:
Careful, light does not require a medium. But yes, c, in a medium, varies.
Understood... Just heading off the obvious "It only moves at 3x10^8m/s in a vacuum" nitpick :)
RichardM1 wrote:
Light ALWAYS goes c, and never slower. c varies per above.
The way I've always understood it was that c ~= 3x10^8m/s = Speed of light in a vacuum. It's a constant. Light travels slower than c through a denser medium.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok... Well I'm sure you've heard this one before... If two ships are moving toward each other, each moving at 0.9c relative to a stationary observer, then they SHOULD be moving at 1.8c relative to each other... General relativity states that they're only moving at 0.9c relative to each other...
"SHOULD be" is in non-relativistic terms. I can't give you the equations for this, but I know that applying special relativity gives you an approach velocity of less than c but greater than 0.9_c_. There is time dilation and space contaction going on between the two ships, not just between the other observer and the ships.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But if they're 0.9 light minutes apart, is that stationary observer in the middle (Hopefully not TOO close to the middle) going to see them crash in one minute or 30 seconds? If the latter, then it just doesn't make sense to say that they're only moving 0.9c relative to each other. It might make sense that we only PERCEIVE them moving at 0.9c, even though the actual relative speed is twice that.
Only the other observer sees the distance as being 0.9 light minutes. Time dilation causes space contraction. If the other observer sees the ship moving at 0.9_c_, and 0.45 light minutes away, the ship sees the other observer moving at 0.9_c_, but at a shorter distance, inversely proportional to the time dilation. Since the distance is less than 0.45 light minutes, the speed required for them both to cross the distance is less, so their relative velocity is less than c.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok... Well I'm sure you've heard this one before... If two ships are moving toward each other, each moving at 0.9c relative to a stationary observer, then they SHOULD be moving at 1.8c relative to each other... General relativity states that they're only moving at 0.9c relative to each other...
"SHOULD be" is in non-relativistic terms. I can't give you the equations for this, but I know that applying special relativity gives you an approach velocity of less than c but greater than 0.9_c_. There is time dilation and space contaction going on between the two ships, not just between the other observer and the ships.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But if they're 0.9 light minutes apart, is that stationary observer in the middle (Hopefully not TOO close to the middle) going to see them crash in one minute or 30 seconds? If the latter, then it just doesn't make sense to say that they're only moving 0.9c relative to each other. It might make sense that we only PERCEIVE them moving at 0.9c, even though the actual relative speed is twice that.
Only the other observer sees the distance as being 0.9 light minutes. Time dilation causes space contraction. If the other observer sees the ship moving at 0.9_c_, and 0.45 light minutes away, the ship sees the other observer moving at 0.9_c_, but at a shorter distance, inversely proportional to the time dilation. Since the distance is less than 0.45 light minutes, the speed required for them both to cross the distance is less, so their relative velocity is less than c.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Only the other observer sees the distance as being 0.9 light minutes. Time dilation causes space contraction. If the other observer sees the ship moving at 0.9c, and 0.45 light minutes away, the ship sees the other observer moving at 0.9c, but at a shorter distance, inversely proportional to the time dilation. Since the distance is less than 0.45 light minutes, the speed required for them both to cross the distance is less, so their relative velocity is less than c.
Ok, now you've lost me completely. Forget how they see each other for a second, and focus on the stationary observer... They reach the starting line, going 0.9c, at the same time he starts his stopwatch. Each is going 0.9c, and they're 0.9 light minutes apart. Ignoring the fact that they're near light speed, they would each reach the center in 30 seconds, and the explosion would be very entertaining... So is the guy's stopwatch going to read 30 seconds, or does the theory predict that it would take longer?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Unknown is not equal, without asking you favor any.
If we have no actual knowledge, then we can't assign a higher probability to one theory than to another. Without any data, the "creator" theory is no more likely than the "snot" theory, which is no more likely than the "airport locker" theory (Men in Black 2).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If we have no actual knowledge, then we can't assign a higher probability to one theory than to another.
Right. Unknown. You can't say they are different. You can't say they are the same. Unknown.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Hmm... Ok, point ceded. Technically, we can't assign a statistical probability. The earlier point remains though... What makes the "creator" theory any more plausible than the "airport locker" theory, for example? Why does the "creator" theory merit being disproved instead of ignored, while the "airport locker" theory is simply disregarded? Is it because the "airport locker" theory comes from a work that identifies itself as fiction? My novels are based on a "multiple universes and dimensions" theory. If I claimed that my novels were fact instead of fiction, would that suddenly be as plausible as the "creator" theory? Technically, it can't be disproved either, aside from the fact that I openly admit that I dreamed it up and that it's a fabrication.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Only the other observer sees the distance as being 0.9 light minutes. Time dilation causes space contraction. If the other observer sees the ship moving at 0.9c, and 0.45 light minutes away, the ship sees the other observer moving at 0.9c, but at a shorter distance, inversely proportional to the time dilation. Since the distance is less than 0.45 light minutes, the speed required for them both to cross the distance is less, so their relative velocity is less than c.
Ok, now you've lost me completely. Forget how they see each other for a second, and focus on the stationary observer... They reach the starting line, going 0.9c, at the same time he starts his stopwatch. Each is going 0.9c, and they're 0.9 light minutes apart. Ignoring the fact that they're near light speed, they would each reach the center in 30 seconds, and the explosion would be very entertaining... So is the guy's stopwatch going to read 30 seconds, or does the theory predict that it would take longer?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
So is the guy's stopwatch going to read 30 seconds, or does the theory predict that it would take longer?
There is nothing special about him. Things will have certain measures in his frame of reference. The distance is 0.9 light minutes between the two ship. The ships are each moving 0.9_c_ relative to the him. The time is 30 seconds to impact in his frame of reference. Only one of these are true for the other two frames of reference. Each other frame of reference see the center guy moving at 0.9_c_, relative to themselves. The measured distance between ships is not 0.9 light minutes in their frame of reference. The distance to impact is less than 0.45 light minutes. The time to impact is less than 30 seconds. All these measurements are correct. Both distance and time change.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Hmm... Ok, point ceded. Technically, we can't assign a statistical probability. The earlier point remains though... What makes the "creator" theory any more plausible than the "airport locker" theory, for example? Why does the "creator" theory merit being disproved instead of ignored, while the "airport locker" theory is simply disregarded? Is it because the "airport locker" theory comes from a work that identifies itself as fiction? My novels are based on a "multiple universes and dimensions" theory. If I claimed that my novels were fact instead of fiction, would that suddenly be as plausible as the "creator" theory? Technically, it can't be disproved either, aside from the fact that I openly admit that I dreamed it up and that it's a fabrication.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Is it because the "airport locker" theory comes from a work that identifies itself as fiction? My novels are based on a "multiple universes and dimensions" theory. If I claimed that my novels were fact instead of fiction, would that suddenly be as plausible as the "creator" theory? Technically, it can't be disproved either, aside from the fact that I openly admit that I dreamed it up and that it's a fabrication.
The published observations give us no hard indication what the mechanism for creation was, before the inflationary stage coming out of a singularity. You are not the first to think up multiple 'verses and dimensions. There are theories that indicate it as a possibility, but no proof. But they are not mutually exclusive with a Creator. One is method, the other is cause. God may have used a multiverse, locker, or created out of nothing, using the big bang. Thank you for asking these questions, I had not realized that before. :-D
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Is it because the "airport locker" theory comes from a work that identifies itself as fiction? My novels are based on a "multiple universes and dimensions" theory. If I claimed that my novels were fact instead of fiction, would that suddenly be as plausible as the "creator" theory? Technically, it can't be disproved either, aside from the fact that I openly admit that I dreamed it up and that it's a fabrication.
The published observations give us no hard indication what the mechanism for creation was, before the inflationary stage coming out of a singularity. You are not the first to think up multiple 'verses and dimensions. There are theories that indicate it as a possibility, but no proof. But they are not mutually exclusive with a Creator. One is method, the other is cause. God may have used a multiverse, locker, or created out of nothing, using the big bang. Thank you for asking these questions, I had not realized that before. :-D
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are not the first to think up multiple 'verses and dimensions. There are theories that indicate it as a possibility, but no proof.
Oh, I know that... Never said I was the first... It's the other ideas in my novel that are original :)
RichardM1 wrote:
But they are not mutually exclusive with a Creator. One is method, the other is cause. God may have used a multiverse, locker, or created out of nothing, using the big bang.
See, you're assuming a creator and just fitting one into all of the blanks... I'm operating under the assumption of nothingness, and looking for proof before moving from there.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So is the guy's stopwatch going to read 30 seconds, or does the theory predict that it would take longer?
There is nothing special about him. Things will have certain measures in his frame of reference. The distance is 0.9 light minutes between the two ship. The ships are each moving 0.9_c_ relative to the him. The time is 30 seconds to impact in his frame of reference. Only one of these are true for the other two frames of reference. Each other frame of reference see the center guy moving at 0.9_c_, relative to themselves. The measured distance between ships is not 0.9 light minutes in their frame of reference. The distance to impact is less than 0.45 light minutes. The time to impact is less than 30 seconds. All these measurements are correct. Both distance and time change.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Ok, so from the POV of an independent observer, what would happen if one of them turned on their rocket engines? You can see where I'm going with this... From an independent perspective, could it accelerate to the speed of light?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ok, so from the POV of an independent observer, what would happen if one of them turned on their rocket engines? You can see where I'm going with this... From an independent perspective, could it accelerate to the speed of light?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, so from the POV of an independent observer, what would happen if one of them turned on their rocket engines? You can see where I'm going with this... From an independent perspective, could it accelerate to the speed of light?
And that is the crux of your problem understanding it. There is no independent observer/perspective. There is no special frame of reference in which things are not moving. All frames of reference are relative to all others. All the same rules apply to all frames of reference. Suppose that X's frame of reference is going at 0.99999999_c_ with respect to your frame of reference. In X's frame of reference, you are going at 0.99999999_c_, in the opposite direction. X can accelerate to a new frame of reference that is 0.1_c_, or 0.5_c_, faster than X's previous frame of reference, in the same direction you see X going. The math may work out that the difference in velocity between your frame of reference and X's will be 0.9999999999_c_, or 0.99999999999999_c_, but it will never hit c. And, in each frame of reference, any measurement of the speed of light will show it to be c, relative to that frame of reference, in all directions.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You are not the first to think up multiple 'verses and dimensions. There are theories that indicate it as a possibility, but no proof.
Oh, I know that... Never said I was the first... It's the other ideas in my novel that are original :)
RichardM1 wrote:
But they are not mutually exclusive with a Creator. One is method, the other is cause. God may have used a multiverse, locker, or created out of nothing, using the big bang.
See, you're assuming a creator and just fitting one into all of the blanks... I'm operating under the assumption of nothingness, and looking for proof before moving from there.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
See, you're assuming a creator and just fitting one into all of the blanks
No, I am not fitting one into all the blanks. I look at the Bible and see how it meshes with observation. I don't see God fitting into the spaces 'between' science. I believe God built EVERYTHING. He put together quantum mechanics, He knows relativity, since He made the rules. Again, you are looking at the method of creation, I am also looking at the cause. But I'm not trying to convince you, I'm explaining what I believe and why. I don't believe I can convince anyone of God's existence. You either see proof through your observation, or you don't. If you see it, you decide to believe it, or you don't. I looked at my observations, and, to me, it was proof of God. So I believe. YMMV.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, so from the POV of an independent observer, what would happen if one of them turned on their rocket engines? You can see where I'm going with this... From an independent perspective, could it accelerate to the speed of light?
And that is the crux of your problem understanding it. There is no independent observer/perspective. There is no special frame of reference in which things are not moving. All frames of reference are relative to all others. All the same rules apply to all frames of reference. Suppose that X's frame of reference is going at 0.99999999_c_ with respect to your frame of reference. In X's frame of reference, you are going at 0.99999999_c_, in the opposite direction. X can accelerate to a new frame of reference that is 0.1_c_, or 0.5_c_, faster than X's previous frame of reference, in the same direction you see X going. The math may work out that the difference in velocity between your frame of reference and X's will be 0.9999999999_c_, or 0.99999999999999_c_, but it will never hit c. And, in each frame of reference, any measurement of the speed of light will show it to be c, relative to that frame of reference, in all directions.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
See, that's the kind of reply I always get... To quote a line from Babylon 5... Every answer is a reply, but not every reply is an answer. If you're moving at .99999c toward me, relative to me, and you hit a point one light minute away at a scheduled time, then kick in the afterburners, will you reach me before my stopwatch hits 60 seconds? Regardless of how the traveler perceives the journey, if you don't rely on observing the starting point (Synchronizing watches instead), it doesn't take complex math for someone at the destination to see when you arrive. I understand that there's no "stationary", as if I'm standing still relative to the sun, I'm still moving quite fast relative to the galactic center, and still faster relative to the estimated center of the universe... But given a fixed frame of reference, it should still be possible to avoid the perception game and see whether the elapsed time is more or less than basic f=ma would imply.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)